Jim Nicell spent ten years as McGill’s Dean of Engineering and has more than 30 years inside university leadership, governance, and academic culture.

CRI:
After ten years as Dean of Engineering at McGill University and as an active member and leader of Engineering Deans Canada, what lessons stand out about how universities can adapt faster, structurally or culturally, to this rapid pace of technological and environmental change?

Jim:
Holy cow, that’s a tough question.

People often say universities are slower to change than the Catholic Church, and honestly, there’s some truth to that. A big part of it is how we’re built. We’re these large, highly decentralized systems that exist to protect academic freedom and maintain consistency over time. While that structure has value, it also creates a kind of inertia, a tendency to move slowly and carefully – sometimes too carefully.

The real challenge is balance. You want to protect that collegial way of doing things, because it gives people a voice and keeps the mission grounded. But you also need to be able to move when the world shifts around you. Those two instincts – caution and agility – don’t naturally sit well together.

In my experience, the trick is to prepare the ground for change long before you need it. That means being transparent, sharing priorities and constraints openly, and bringing people in early so they understand what’s coming and why it matters. When that groundwork is there, your community is much more ready to adapt when the time comes.

We’ve seen that tested through the pandemic, the rise of AI, and constant shifting of research priorities. The issues change, but the question remains: how do you build a culture that protects its core mission but adapts and keeps moving?

Most academics step into leadership with little formal training. We’re taught to research and teach, not necessarily to lead. Combine that with short, rotating leadership terms, and it can be hard to sustain momentum. The flip side is that this constant renewal keeps fresh ideas flowing, and that’s where the next wave of progress begins.

CRI:
On the individual level, what have you learned about the courage it takes – and the friction involved – in leading real change inside a university?

Jim:
It starts with understanding that leadership in universities is different. Change can’t depend on authority from the top, it has to be about leading from the middle.

You have to find out where people want to go and help them get there. It’s less “follow me” and more “let’s move together.” That means talking, listening, planning, and constantly working to align your colleagues around shared goals.

Professors should be given opportunities to lead in small ways – committees, projects, mentorship – so their circle of influence grows naturally. If you skip that and throw someone straight into a senior role without experience, they’ll likely move too fast and face resistance.

Change takes groundwork. Professors see themselves as stewards of governance; they’ll give authority, but they’ll also push back if they don’t feel included. The friction often comes from that tension.

Another danger in collegial systems is the tendency to want to please everyone. You can’t. The goal isn’t unanimous consent, it’s broad alignment. You identify your allies, move forward with them, and make sure you don’t alienate the rest. Keep listening, keep engaging, and design change collaboratively.

It takes longer, but it lasts.

CRI:
During your time as Dean, you saw a major increase in women entering engineering. What actually moves the needle on inclusion – not just recruitment, but culture?

Jim:
It’s absolutely a cultural process. You can treat EDI like a checklist - that is, something that someone is given responsibility to take care of - or you can embed it in the way the whole organization works.

In my experience, meaningful change takes about three years – the classic hockey-stick curve. You do the groundwork, build buy-in, and then momentum starts to accelerate.

With EDI, you can’t just pull one lever to bring about change. If one approach isn’t working, find other levers. Spread responsibility across portfolios – student affairs, recruitment, research, scholarships, governance. Each of those areas has different levers, different allies, and different kinds of impact. Success in one area builds credibility in others, and over time that shifts culture.

The key is to align what you’re asking people to do with what they already care about. Don’t make it “one more thing” on their list. Help them do what they already value – better, more equitably, and with pride. That’s how culture changes.

CRI:
Given all your leadership experience, what kind of legacy do you think this generation of academic leaders will leave behind?

Jim:

I’m actually quite worried that we’re at a critical point for universities. This “circle the wagons” mentality that’s setting in because universities are feeling under attack from many directions. The danger is that we turn inward when we need to do the opposite.

I’ve always believed that every crisis is also an opportunity, and right now, I think the opportunity lies in collaboration. Many universities across the country are facing the same pressures – financial, political, technological – and that shared struggle should be a catalyst for working together, not retreating into competition.

To me, one of the most important things we can do is build a culture of collaboration. Universities tend to want to stand out, to claim their successes and celebrate them publicly, which is fine, to a degree. But I think we need to step back and recognize that we can achieve much more together than we ever could alone.

So the legacy I hope for from this period is a new generation of leaders willing to hitch their wagons to collective, inter-institutional initiatives; people who see value in shared wins rather than individual credit.

The same applies inside universities. We’ve been talking about interdisciplinarity for decades, but too often it’s just a buzzword. Real interdisciplinarity isn’t just training people to understand multiple fields, it’s bringing teams from different disciplines together to work toward common goals. That can happen between professors, departments, faculties, or even across entire institutions.

I’ll be honest – what still frustrates me is that even in collaborative grants, the instinct is to claim ownership. One university puts out a press release celebrating the award as if it’s theirs alone, with little mention of the partners who made it possible. That tendency to seek credit rather than shared success can be destructive.

Maybe I’m asking a lot, but I do think we’re starting to see change. I see more leaders now who understand that collaboration isn’t weakness, it’s strategy. If that mindset takes root, that could be one of the most meaningful legacies of this era of crisis.

CRI:
Last question, what’s your take on the impact of AI in engineering schools?

Jim:
Look, I think engineering schools – like everyone else – are still in stormy waters, trying to see where land is ahead.

Engineers see the potential of AI to amplify what we do and make our work better. I often compare it to when calculators first came in. Decades ago, 75 to 80 percent of a civil engineer’s  time was spent on manual  calculations. Only a small fraction of their time or effort went to design and creativity.

When calculators and later personal computers arrived, that changed everything. Suddenly, engineers could spend more time thinking, creating, and designing rather than grinding through arithmetic. That didn’t replace engineers, it liberated them to be far more innovative.

I think AI has the same potential. It can help us find information faster, test more ideas, and focus on creative problem-solving instead of just process. If AI can take care of some of the groundwork, it gives us back time to innovate.

Of course, we can’t just hand responsibility to AI and assume it’s right. We still have to test, verify, and ensure our systems are safe, secure, and robust. Used properly, AI can make engineers better than ever. 

The danger is in leaning on AI too heavily and letting it make us lazy. Engineers learn by doing – by building, failing, and learning from that process. If students rely on AI too much, they might miss out on that essential part of learning.

There’s also the issue of communication. I used to tell new engineering students that technical skill alone isn’t enough; you have to be able to listen, explain, and persuade. But many students come in less confident in their communication skills, and I worry that AI might become a crutch for that. If they use it to write or explain for them, they could graduate even less capable of expressing their own ideas.

So yes, AI is another powerful tool in our toolbox, but it’s still up to us to decide whether it strengthens our work or weakens the foundation we’re trying to build.

Want to see how CRI can help you create data-driven change in your institution? Let us know what you’re trying to do.

Call us at (514)-250-4495 or let us reach out.